Abstract
Abstract Citrus production in Florida declined steadily because of Huanglongbing (i.e., HLB, citrus greening) caused by the bacteria Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus. The objectives of the study were to determine whether leaf tissue nutrient concentration, tree growth, fruit yield, and juice content were improved with split applications of essential nutrients on selected rootstocks on Florida sandy soils. The treatments were arranged in a split‐split plot design where the nitrogen (N) was fertigated in 20 splits and the Ca + Mg nutrients were also split three times coinciding with the spring, summer, and late summer flush seasons on trees budded on two rootstocks of ‘Hamlin’ citrus trees [ Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck]. A significant difference in leaf N, calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) concentration were detected between rootstocks when trees received the highest N rate and remained within the optimum range of critical nutrition concentration even with the lowest N rate, suggesting a lower N requirement with split N applications. Yet, leaf Mg concentration remained in the minimum range implying a low soil Mg pool. For Ca, Mg, and Ca + Mg treatments, we recorded 1.41×, 1.23×, and 1.23× and 1.22×, 1.26×, and 1.30× greater tree canopy volumes (TCV) on Cleopatra and Swingle rootstocks, respectively, as compared with control trees. Significantly greater fruit yield was detected for trees budded on Cleopatra rootstocks that received either Ca or Ca + Mg treated trees with 59.7 and 63.0 kg tree –1 as compared with the control trees (36.9 kg tree –1 ), respectively. A magnitude of 1.14× more average fruit weight than control trees was noted for trees budded on Swingle rootstock in response to Mg nutrition. Therefore, the application of essential nutrients has a positive impact to ameliorate tree growth and nutrient deficiency associated with Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus‐induced problems, thereby improving tree growth and yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
At the highest nitrogen rate, leaf nitrogen, calcium and magnesium concentrations differed significantly between rootstocks.
- Treatment
- highest N ratee0
- Outcome
- leaf N, calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) concentratione0
- Comparator
- rootstockse0
CitrusNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A significant difference in leaf N, calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) concentration were detected between rootstocks when trees received the highest N rate”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf nutrient concentration remained in the optimum range even at the lowest nitrogen rate.
- Treatment
- lowest N ratee0
- Outcome
- critical nutrition concentratione0
- Direction
- remained within the optimum rangee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“remained within the optimum range of critical nutrition concentration even with the lowest N rate”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf magnesium concentration remained in the minimum range.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf Mg concentration remained in the minimum range”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium treatment gave Cleopatra trees 1.41× greater canopy volume than controls.
- Material
- Cleopatrae0
- Treatment
- Cae0
- Outcome
- tree canopy volumes (TCV)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1.41×e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For Ca, Mg, and Ca + Mg treatments, we recorded 1.41×, 1.23×, and 1.23× and 1.22×, 1.26×, and 1.30× greater tree canopy volumes (TCV) on Cleopatra and Swingle rootstocks, respectively, as compared with control trees”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Magnesium treatment gave Cleopatra trees 1.23× greater canopy volume than controls.
- Material
- Cleopatrae0
- Treatment
- Mge0
- Outcome
- tree canopy volumes (TCV)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1.23×e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For Ca, Mg, and Ca + Mg treatments, we recorded 1.41×, 1.23×, and 1.23× and 1.22×, 1.26×, and 1.30× greater tree canopy volumes (TCV) on Cleopatra and Swingle rootstocks, respectively, as compared with control trees”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium plus magnesium gave Cleopatra trees 1.23× greater canopy volume than controls.
- Material
- Cleopatrae0
- Treatment
- Ca + Mge0
- Outcome
- tree canopy volumes (TCV)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1.23×e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For Ca, Mg, and Ca + Mg treatments, we recorded 1.41×, 1.23×, and 1.23× and 1.22×, 1.26×, and 1.30× greater tree canopy volumes (TCV) on Cleopatra and Swingle rootstocks, respectively, as compared with control trees”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium treatment gave Swingle trees 1.22× greater canopy volume than controls.
- Material
- Swinglee0
- Treatment
- Cae0
- Outcome
- tree canopy volumes (TCV)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1.22×e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For Ca, Mg, and Ca + Mg treatments, we recorded 1.41×, 1.23×, and 1.23× and 1.22×, 1.26×, and 1.30× greater tree canopy volumes (TCV) on Cleopatra and Swingle rootstocks, respectively, as compared with control trees”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Magnesium treatment gave Swingle trees 1.26× greater canopy volume than controls.
- Material
- Swinglee0
- Treatment
- Mge0
- Outcome
- tree canopy volumes (TCV)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1.26×e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For Ca, Mg, and Ca + Mg treatments, we recorded 1.41×, 1.23×, and 1.23× and 1.22×, 1.26×, and 1.30× greater tree canopy volumes (TCV) on Cleopatra and Swingle rootstocks, respectively, as compared with control trees”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium plus magnesium gave Swingle trees 1.30× greater canopy volume than controls.
- Material
- Swinglee0
- Treatment
- Ca + Mge0
- Outcome
- tree canopy volumes (TCV)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1.30×e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For Ca, Mg, and Ca + Mg treatments, we recorded 1.41×, 1.23×, and 1.23× and 1.22×, 1.26×, and 1.30× greater tree canopy volumes (TCV) on Cleopatra and Swingle rootstocks, respectively, as compared with control trees”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium treated Cleopatra trees yielded 59.7 kg tree –1 versus 36.9 kg tree –1 in controls.
- Material
- Cleopatrae0
- Treatment
- Cae0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 59.7e0
- Qualifier
- 36.9 kg tree –1e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly greater fruit yield was detected for trees budded on Cleopatra rootstocks that received either Ca or Ca + Mg treated trees with 59.7 and 63.0 kg tree –1 as compared with the control trees (36.9 kg tree –1 ), respectively”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium plus magnesium treated Cleopatra trees yielded 63.0 kg tree –1 versus 36.9 kg tree –1 in controls.
- Material
- Cleopatrae0
- Treatment
- Ca + Mge0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 63.0 kg tree –1e0
- Qualifier
- 36.9 kg tree –1e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly greater fruit yield was detected for trees budded on Cleopatra rootstocks that received either Ca or Ca + Mg treated trees with 59.7 and 63.0 kg tree –1 as compared with the control trees (36.9 kg tree –1 ), respectively”
t0“citrus trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Magnesium increased average fruit weight by 1.14× on Swingle rootstock.
- Material
- Swinglee0
- Treatment
- Mg nutritione0
- Outcome
- average fruit weighte0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 1.14×e0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A magnitude of 1.14× more average fruit weight than control trees was noted for trees budded on Swingle rootstock in response to Mg nutrition”
t0“citrus trees”
The same questions in other papers
calcium atom · yield · CitrusPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →calcium atom · growth · CitrusPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →magnesium atom · growth · CitrusResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
magnesium atom · yield · CitrusResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.